Growing frustration with the performance of the Democratic Congress, combined with widespread public pessimism over President Bush's temporary troop buildup in Iraq, has left satisfaction with the overall direction of the country at its lowest point in more than a decade, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Almost six in 10 Americans said they do not think the additional troops sent to Iraq since the beginning of the year will help restore civil order there, and 53 percent -- a new high in Post-ABC News polls -- said they do not believe that the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

Disapproval of Bush's performance in office remains high, but the poll highlighted growing disapproval of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.

Much of that drop was fueled by lower approval ratings of the Democrats in Congress among strong opponents of the war, independents and liberal Democrats. While independents were evenly split on the Democrats in Congress in April (49 percent approved, 48 percent disapproved), now 37 percent said they approved and 54 percent disapproved. Among liberal Democrats, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 18 points.

Many Democratic activists have complained that the 2006 midterm election results represented a call for a course change in Iraq and that so far the Democratic-controlled Congress has failed to deliver.

Deep public skepticism about Iraq, concerns about the Democrats and Bush, and near-record-high gasoline prices appear to have combined to sour the overall mood in the country. In the new poll, 73 percent of Americans said the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, while 25 percent said things are going in the right direction.

That gap is marginally wider than it was at the beginning of the year and represents the most gloomy expression of public sentiment since January 1996, when a face-off between President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress over the budget led to an extended shutdown of the federal government.

Among the nearly three-quarters of Americans expressing a pessimistic viewpoint, about one in five blamed the war for their negative outlook, and about the same ratio mentioned the economy, gas prices, jobs or debt as the main reason for their dissatisfaction with the country's direction. Eleven percent cited "problems with Bush," and another 11 percent said "everything" led them to their negative opinion.

The new poll showed that Americans have recalibrated their view of who is taking the lead in Washington. Earlier this year, majorities of Americans said they believed that the Democrats were taking the initiative in the capital, but now there is an even split, with 43 percent saying Bush is taking the stronger leadership role and 45 percent saying the Democrats are.

That shift occurred across the political spectrum. In April, 59 percent of independents said Democrats were taking a stronger role, but that figure has dropped 15 points, to 44 percent.

The political machinations over the Iraq war funding bill have been the dominant news event in Congress for much of the spring, and the Democrats' removal of the provision linking funding to a withdrawal deadline came shortly before the poll was taken.

In April, the public, by a 25-point margin, trusted the Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq. In this poll, Democrats maintained an advantage, but by 16 points. There has been an erosion of support for Democrats on this issue, but not a corresponding movement to Bush. Among independents, trust for the Democrats is down eight points, mostly because of a six-point bump in the percentage who said they trust "neither."

Congressional Democrats also are preferred over Bush -- whose own approval ratings remain near career lows -- on immigration (by 17 percentage points), the economy (by 18 points) and even, albeit narrowly, on handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism (by six points).

But it is the war in Iraq -- the most important issue in the 2006 campaign -- that has the most potential to reshape the political landscape.

Overall, 61 percent in this poll said the war was not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds said the United States is not making significant progress restoring civil order in Iraq. However, there is no such general agreement about what to do.

In this poll, 55 percent -- a new high -- said the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be decreased, but only 15 percent advocated an immediate withdrawal of American troops. An additional 12 percent said U.S. forces should be out of Iraq sometime this year.

Since the Iraqi parliamentary elections in November 2005, consistent majorities of Americans have said U.S. troops should be drawn down; support for an immediate, complete withdrawal has also remained relatively stable, never exceeding two in 10. And there similarly has been little change across party lines: 25 percent of the Democrats surveyed wanted all American military forces out of Iraq now, compared with 13 percent of independents and 6 percent of Republicans, with all percentages about the same as in late 2005. Support for the immediate removal of U.S. forces peaked at 32 percent among African Americans.

Public attitudes about the size of U.S. military forces in Iraq and about the war more generally are closely related to views about the centrality of the situation in Iraq to the broader battle against terrorism, another flashpoint between Bush and congressional Democrats. (In this poll, nearly six in 10 agreed with the Democratic position that the two are separate issues.) Overall, more than seven in 10 of those who said Iraq is an essential component of the terrorism fight wanted U.S. troop levels in Iraq to be increased or kept the same, while more than seven in 10 of those seeing the issues as separate thought that some or all troops should be withdrawn. Among independents who said the United States can succeed against terrorism without winning in Iraq, 70 percent supported decreasing troop levels, compared with 23 percent of those who saw victory in Iraq as pivotal.

This Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 29 to June 1 among a random sample of 1,205 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling error margins are higher for subgroups.

I am on my OPT (started on 5th Jan 2009) currently and am working for a startup company. However, I am told that the company has funds only to support my position for another 2 months or so.

But the company is ready to sponsor my H1B for April 1st this year to help me keep my immigration status. My question is if my H1B application is approved this year but I loose the job before the H1B kicks in (1st October 2009) can the approved H1B be transferred to a new company, if I get another job?

Most of the people facing this same problem. But some body got the solution. Some body can not get solution. If you get the solution please share that information to everyone. It is very helpful for who are facing the same problem. Thank you .............. Nic Payroll India (http://www.topsyssolutions.com)

2011 quot;medium length haircuts

Her layered medium length

kmdhar

06-16 10:31 AM

Rohit, Please let me know if you have any information on this. I am in the same boat. Do we have to file different PERM if moved to different location with in same metro area(city/county).

For my 9th year H1-B visa extension, i want to use the premium processing. All the attorney fee and any other expenses will be paid by my company. I want to pay only the $1000 for premium processing. Is this legal ? Can the attorney attach my $1000 check signed by me, to the visa extension application with all other paperwork and send it to BCIS ?

If this is not legal what are my options ?

Please let me know.

slc_ut

Shoulder Length Straight

AstroZombie916

09-13 03:30 PM

Ok, heres the problem. When i got to export my animation, it always slows down on the eighth frame exactly when its doing the ravid thing. I mean it will take 5-10 per frame until it gets to the eighth frame, then it takes about 20 minutes a frame...why? Is there anything im doing wrong???

A Polarized, and Polarizing, Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301949.html) By David S. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com), August 5, 2007

The distinguishing characteristic of this Congress was on vivid display the other day when the House debated a bill to expand the federal program that provides health insurance for children of the working poor.

Even when it is performing a useful service, this Congress manages to look ugly and mean-spirited. So much blood has been spilled, so much bile stockpiled on Capitol Hill, that no good deed goes untarnished.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a 10-year-old proven success. Originally a product of bipartisan consensus, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was one of the last domestic achievements before Monica and impeachment fever seized control.

It is up for renewal this year and suddenly has become a bone of contention. President Bush underfunded it in his budget; the $4.8 billion extra he proposed spending in the next five years would not finance insurance even for all those who are currently being served.

But when the Senate Finance Committee proposed boosting the funding to $35 billion -- financed by a hefty hike in tobacco taxes -- Bush threatened a veto, and he raised the rhetorical stakes by claiming that the measure was a step toward "government health insurance."

That was surprising news to Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two staunch conservatives who had joined in sponsoring the Senate bill, which the Senate Finance Committee supported 17 to 4.

But rather than meet the president's unwise challenge with a strong bipartisan alternative, the House Democratic leadership decided to raise the partisan stakes even higher by bringing out a $50 billion bill that not only would expand SCHIP but would also curtail the private Medicare benefit delivery system that Bush favors.

To add insult to injury, House Democratic leaders then took a leaf from the old Republican playbook and brought the swollen bill to the floor with minimal time for debate and denied Republicans any opportunity to offer amendments.

The result was undisguised fury -- and some really ugly exchanges on the floor. The worst, given voice by former speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, among others, was the charge that the Democrats were opening the program to illegal immigrants. The National Republican Congressional Committee distributed that distortion wholesale across the country in a flurry of news releases playing to the same kind of nativist prejudice that sank the immigration reform bill. In fact, governors of both parties support the certification system included in the bill for assuring that families meet citizenship requirements; the governors know that too many legal residents have been wrongly disqualified because they could not locate their birth certificates.

In the end, the House bill passed on a near-party-line vote, 225 to 204, far short of the margin that would be needed to override the promised Bush veto. That means the program will probably have to be given a temporary renewal before the Sept. 30 deadline, and eventually Democrats and the White House will negotiate an agreement.

So it will go down as one more example of unnecessary conflict. No rational human being could explain why a program that both parties support and both want to continue could ignite such a fight.

But that is Washington in this era of polarized politics. As Congress heads out for its August recess, it has accomplished about as much as is usually the case at this stage. It passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and an overdue but healthy package of ethics reforms. It moved some routine legislation.

But what the public has seen and heard is mainly the ugly sound of partisan warfare. The Senate let a handful of dissident Republicans highjack the immigration bill. Its Democratic leadership marched up the hill and back down on repeated futile efforts to circumscribe American involvement in Iraq, then shamefully pulled back from a final vote when a constructive Republican alternative to the Bush policy was on offer.

The less-than-vital issue of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has occupied more time and attention than the threat of a terrorist enclave in Pakistan -- or the unchecked growth of long-term debts that could sink Medicare and Social Security.

And when this Congress had an opportunity to take a relatively simple, incremental step to extend health insurance to a vulnerable group, the members managed to make a mess of it.

Folks does any one have some info what are the processing times at Dallas and Phili. My LC is pending 2 years. Does anyone have any info what year cases the Dallas and Phili are processing.

Thanks much

hot Eva Longoria Shoulder Length

Long wavy haircuts give the

goel_ar

03-23 03:36 PM

Good news. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) recently issued guidance on the new H-1B amendment that limits Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients� ability to hire H-1B workers. The USCIS confirmed that the new H-1B amendment does not apply to H-1B extensions for current employees with the same employer.

"EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer."

Years of congressional inaction and paralysis on immigration reform have created an untenable situation that, depending on which �side of the fence� one sits on the Arizona immigration law debate, has either forced the Arizona legislature to take necessary action or permitted overzealous lawmakers to trump federal authority. And while a constitutional challenge of the law will most likely result in its demise, the immigration debate will not abate until such time that a bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform bill is passed by Congress. In the interim, one can only conjecture what effect the Arizona law will have on legal immigrants...

Hi, I am being told by my employer that Prevailing wage applies for the hours from the start of an employment to the end of the year irrespective of any vacations. I joined my current company in Feb 2010 and went to India for 1.5 months in Oct-Nov and came back, My prevailing wage hours is calculated from Feb 2010 till the end of the year ignoring the break I took when in India. So, even if I am paid for only the hours I worked here, I have to match the Prevailing wages based upon the hrs from Feb 10 till Dec end 2010. They want me to pay them the difference as I had a low billing rate and my total earning is lower than the prevailing wage based upon this calculation. I don't see sufficient information on the web for this clause. Please help. Thanks Jimmy

I usually use this space's real estate to criticize the tactics of the antis. But I'll give them some credit for the extremely effective job they did during the first two rounds of immigration reform earlier this decade. That was largely because of a well organized grass roots effort that left the pro-immigrant forces in the dust. The Reform Immigration For America coalition has sought to help the pros get caught up. And they are starting to show real muscle. Last night, an estimated 60,000 people participated in 1000 house parties across the country where they listened in to a...

Hey all Can anyone suggest that which are good university to do master in computer science?????

girlfriend Medium Length Curly Hairstyles

2010 Medium Length Layered

terah14

10-27 12:45 AM

Case against his employer had held in the past year and he was doing right to get his right to get the money back so he was not doing anything wrong in the past with his employer but how the new employer of his company react on that background and understand is totally depends upon them but don't worry about it, he was not wrong.

hairstyles Mid-Length Hairstyle amp; Half

A medium; curly hairstyles

Macaca

12-12 10:27 AM

Pelosi vows more civil approach � next year (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7335.html) By Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris | The Politico, Dec 12, 2007

Across the ideological spectrum, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dashed expectations.

On the right, the hope was that Pelosi would be the tallest lightning rod in Washington � playing to type as a �San Francisco liberal� and handing the Republican minority all manner of ideological openings to exploit. For the most part, that has not happened.

On the left, the hope was that Pelosi would lead the newly empowered Democrats to hijack President Bush�s agenda on the issue that matters most to party activists � ending the Iraq war.

To Pelosi�s regret, that has not happened either.

Appraisals of Pelosi�s first year revolve around these fallen hopes and come with still another surprise: For all her history-making status as the first woman to run the House, Pelosi has emerged as a fairly conventional leader.

This is partly to her credit.

She has run a highly disciplined operation, keeping a potentially fractious caucus unified on tough issues.

And she has restrained some of her own instincts representing one of the nation�s most liberal districts.

With a couple of prominent exceptions, she has not handed Republicans opportunities to exploit impolitic statements or legislative maneuvers.

But conventionality has come at a steep cost.

Few members of either party, when speaking privately, argue that what Congress needs most is a change of party with a continuation of the highly partisan status quo.

In many ways, that�s what Pelosi represents.

Democrats bridled at being marginalized under 12 years of Republican rule, but Pelosi has treated turnabout as fair play.

Bending a promise made to voters in the last election, the speaker has shut Republicans out of many debates by limiting their ability to offer alternative ideas on the House floor and made only modest attempts to engage Republicans on many issues, notably Iraq.

This represents a probably accurate calculation about what�s necessary to keep her own party cohesive.

But polarized government has also thwarted some of Pelosi�s own objectives.

The first of those is forcing Bush to end the war. �All of the good things that we did, which were, I mean, astounding � are eclipsed by the war in Iraq,� she said in a Politico interview.

She added that she has been surprised by Democrats� inability to peel off GOP dissenters.

�If I had to say one thing that I would have appraised differently � it would have been that I would not have expected the Republicans in Congress to stick with the president on this war this long,� she said. �Not from their personal statements to us privately or the public mood in their own districts.�

The inability to resolve the Iraq debate or tackle the other most pressing issues is one reason the number of people saying they disapprove of the performance of Congress � at 70 percent in some recent surveys � has risen 15 to 20 points or more since the start of the year.

Pelosi acknowledged she and her leadership team could have done better at managing expectations.

�Maybe we should have been thinking about how we were communicating with the public more,� she said. �Maybe I should have from the start just established what we were doing instead of having to be responsive to the press about �somebody said this, they thought you were doing that,� because this place is a total rumor mill.�

Even so, Pelosi made clear that she is fine with drawing sharp, partisan lines when necessary.

�I certainly want my speakership to be distinguished by a level of civility and bipartisanship when that�s possible,� she said. �That is what I hope to do in this next year, I really do.�

But as for this year? �I had a job to get done this year,� she said. �I had a decision to make; I had to remove obstacles to getting a job done.�

She got it done, at times.

Early in the session, Democrats moved their �six for �06� package promised in the previous election. That included raising the minimum wage, enacting homeland security upgrades and reducing student loan rates.

They also helped their members by pushing for more spending on children�s health care, a political no-brainer for many members, and demanding that Congress offset the cost of new spending with spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere.

Along the way, the elegantly styled speaker, a grandmother of seven, proved herself a steel magnolia � a self-confident leader who projected strength in a way that caused powerful subordinates to defer to her.

Even Vice President Cheney complimented (in a distinctly backhanded way) her leadership, noting he was surprised that such old Democratic bulls of the House as Reps. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania and John Dingell of Michigan seem to follow her lead.

�They are not carrying the big sticks I would have expected,� Cheney told Politico.

�There�s a woman who runs that place with an iron hand,� Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Politico in an interview. �I am sure that some people are a little disappointed [that] this diminutive, very attractive woman is bowling people over � men and women.�

Pelosi has succeeded in part by having her own team of old bulls, such as Rep. George Miller of California, and younger bulls, such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, on her team.

What is sometimes called a weakness � a penchant for micromanaging, for instance � has helped tighten her grip and enhance her standing.

She has muffed up on a few high-profile occasions. A trip to Syria earlier this year was ridiculed by Republicans as clumsy, freelance diplomacy.

She was forced by her Democratic colleagues to quit pushing for the Armenian genocide resolution because it was clearly complicating U.S. relations with Turkey.

The final verdict on her handling of the Iraq debate awaits the year ahead � whether Democrats can either force a change in policy or make Republicans pay a heavy price in the 2008 elections.

For now, the best grade Pelosi can get is incomplete: Democrats have had no substantive success in changing policy.

One what-if echoes. Some members say Democrats missed a golden opportunity early in the summer to find compromise and split Republicans from Bush, laying the groundwork for limits on the military operation.

Pelosi instead pursued an unyielding approach that turned off even the war skeptics inside the GOP.

In a sign of the pressures Pelosi is under, however, it is the anti-war liberals in her own party who offer the harshest assessment of the Pelosi reign so far.

�When you look back at this year, it will be defined as the year of lost opportunities,� said Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, a long-shot presidential candidate. �This was the time to use the power of the majority to chart a new direction. So far it�s been � not only a missed opportunity but a failure.�

By one standard, however, Pelosi can look back on 2007 as a clear success. Her party is as well-organized, and her own position within it more secure, at year�s end compared with year�s start.

�I am not going to let one issue blow up this caucus,� she said. �We always strive for unity.�

mundakamal1

10-14 06:28 AM

I appeared for h1b stamping at new Delhi us embassy. VO kept my passport and forms for admin processing. VO told me it may take 2-4 weeks. they didn't give me any slips ( pink/yellow/green). I am not sure what kind of processing they wanted to do in my case here is my case PIMS found h1b change of employer about 2 months ago working for desi consulting company for last 4 years. new employer is a big American company Undergrad from US university. VO mentioned its random check